Kaduna court fix dates for hearing on N17.7m property demolition

The Kaduna High Court on Monday fixed Nov. 24 and 25 for presentation of witnesses in a case against the Kaduna State Government over the demolition of a N17.7 million property.
Justice Dogara Malam fixed the date following the inability of the parties in the dispute to reach amicable settlement in the matter as was directed by the court on Aug. 15.
At the resumed sitting on Monday, counsel to the plaintiff, John Achimugu, and his defence counterpart, Sanusi Usman, told the court that they were unable to settle the matter amicably and wanted the trial to continue.
Achimugu also prayed the court to treat the case with urgency.
He said that the case bordered “on the interpretation of existing laws as it related to the existence of KASUPDA as a body and its powers to demolish someone’s property’’.
The judge, therefore, fixed Nov. 24 and 25 for expeditious hearing in the case.
The plaintiff, Mrs Bathsheba Halidu, was in court to protest the demolition of her N17.7 million property by the Kaduna State Urban Planning and Development Authority (KASUPDA).
The property was demolished at Angwan Ma’aji Danhono 1, in Chikun Local Government Area of the state in 2013.
The plaintiff is asking the court to declare KASUPDA an illegal entity, as it was not established by law, and that its operations and actions were illegal.
The plaintiff is also praying the court to make a declaration that the demolition of her property was “wrongful and illegal’’, and contravened the Nigeria Urban and Regional Planning Act, 2004.
The plaintiff also wants a declaration that the demolition violated the Kaduna State Urban Planning and Environmental Protection Agency Edict of 1991.
She asked the court for an order of perpetual injunction restraining the defendants or their agents from further interfering in her property.
Joined as defendants in the suit No. KDH/KAD/922/2013, are Saratu Haruna, General Manager, KASUPDA; the Kaduna State Governor, and the Attorney General and Commissioner for Justice.
The plaintiff had informed the court that she fulfilled all conditions for the development of the property and was never issued any “stop work” notice for contravention of any development law, nor was she sued for trespass. (NAN)

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *